Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/29/07 11:24 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/29/07 10:38 PM, Malachy wrote:

At 6/29/07 10:33 PM, SevenSeize wrote: We love you Mal. Hang in there.

well, when you put it that way...

*unties noose* ^_^

With that in mind, perhaps "hang in there" was a poor choice of words?

Maybe it's Opposite Day; Mal did untie the noose, after all. It's a good thing he did too! :D

By the way, Malachy, I love the ctrl-alt-del comic your avatar is from. :)

At 6/29/07 11:22 PM, Memorize wrote: Now what I would like to see is a Republican group introduce a fairness bill that required the Media, Newspapers ect. to the do the same thing, and require them to introduce a 50% positive view on Iraq.

Considering how twisted all of the major media outlets are today... that wouldn't be half bad...

Are you serious? I mean, really serious? 1st amendment 1st amendment 1st amendment 1st amendment.... *glass of water* 1st amendment 1st amendment 1st amendment 1st amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

Congress shall make no law. Congress shall make no law! CONGRES SHALL MAKE NO LAW! CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

Sorry.

This is a obvious restriction on freedom of the press. I mean, really obvious As noticeable as the FCC running into your house, drilling a hole in your head and pouring liquid dog feces into your brain. So maybe that's a little graphic, but wow. These congressmen must have known this goes against the Bill of Rights. Anything like this should require a constitutional amendment, and if there was actually support for that kind of thing.. oh dear.. @_@

I don't care what side of the political aisle you're on, this kind of thing is an extremely huge violation of freedom of the press.

Elfer said: Besides, loophole: Have incompetent people present the opposing view.

I do believe that's what Fox News does by putting a moderate like Colmes in a political debate show by a hard-right guy like Sean Hannity and then calling him "a hard-hitting liberal". But you know what? That is within Fox News' rights, because they are the press, and they have freedom of the press. So does Air America. Freedom of the press is a fundamental value in any free nation; a blatant violation like bringing the sort of thing JakeHero (or the alteration Memorize described) said is abhorrent.

*wipes sweat off forehead* Good day! :D

What? No. Hell no! First Amendment please, people!

At 6/29/07 04:29 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 6/26/07 09:08 PM, SlithVampir wrote: Simple. You insult someone, I insult you. (Cue him PMing me and calling me names.)

Ahh I thought he only did that for me :(

I feel dirty Memorize, you been cheating on me?

!!! He's been doing it to both of you, too!? I thought what we had was special, Memorize!

At 6/26/07 02:25 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 6/26/07 08:31 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: He's probably referring to stem-cell research, something that Republicans traditionally oppose more than democrats. He's pretty right on that one.

Proteas knows, thats what the reference for umbilical cords was : / Criticize his argument like, say, on the grounds that umbilical cords do not have the right kind of stem cells that researchers want, dont talk down to him if you dont even understand what he is saying.

Sorry.

They still need to have enough people in support of conviction to make an impeachment worthwhile and I think less would be in support than you might think.

I think you are wrong

People are so goddamned stupid. This country is so goddamned stupid.

When I said people I was referring to representatives in the House, not the general population; sorry, I should have clarified that.

The people of Iran specifically are usually a lot more forward thinking and now many see through the government rhetoric; Americans aren't all like Dick Cheney, so don't say all Iranians are like Ali Khomenei.

Yeah? I cry bullshit. Lets see a link for this little fantasy land assesment.

It's much more of a fantasy-land assessment to say that all the people in a country automatically support what their leaders say. Provide me a link that supports your stereotype before you ask me to disprove it. That's like if you said "all blacks are lazy, they need to get a job", then I reply "That's not true; that's a stereotype", and then you say "Oh yeah? Prove it!". Prove your initial stereotype before you ask me to prove my retort.

I remember I saw part of a program on PBS that dealt with Iran that followed individual Iranians and showed that they are not like their representatives in the government, but I can't remember the name. :( But I've looked a bit and I've found some examples of resistance against the Iranian regime.

July 1999 Student Protests

Well, nevermind, Wikipedia lists a number of examples (though I know you might say "well wikipedia isn't trustworthy I'm pretty sure we all know that it's not like the July 1999 protests never happened): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_
Iran#Current_Situation

Anyways, it's not fair to say that because the government holds wacky positions that the people also hold them; after all, Iran isn't even a democratic state. If the politicians aren't even elected by the people how can you say that their views even come close to representing that of the public? After all, this is the U.S.A. and the politicians do not always represent what we all believe; certainly not our President. So when Ahmedinejad says some nutty extremist Islamist thing it would be more wise to regard it as being representative of what the people of Iran think in the same sense that George Bush's own views are that of all Americans. Which they most certainly are not. Except that I doubt that even less Iranians are as nutty as Ahmedinejad than there still people who follow Bush. I sure do hope so, anyways.

If you need any evidence that Iran does not democratically represent its people's views, you don't have to look very far; the Freedom House Freedom in the World index rates it Not Free, giving it 6 out of 7 (7 being the least free) on both Civil Rights and Political Rights; and Reporters without Borders ranks it 162 out of 168 countries on press freedom. So when you look at an Iranian newspaper you're not exactly seeing the voice of the people.

The rest of the world is where we see more of the nutty leftists, but here it's more often guys like Rush Limbaugh than Vladimir Lenin.

For all of Rush Limbaughs quirks, he has no blood on his hands. Lenin, however, shit. I do need to do the math, do it yourself.

I was referring to them in terms of political mindsets, not the individual actions of the people; perhaps I should have said whoever writes for Counterpunch instead of Lenin. :\

Don't just vote along party lines, vote for the person who's right for the job.

At 6/28/07 08:59 PM, animehater wrote:

At 6/28/07 04:36 PM, Ravariel wrote: It's also cheaper to keep them locked up for life than it is to kill them.

How does that work exactly? Would carrying out the sentance quicker ease that? Oh, and i'm for.

Appeals process; I read most of them die in prison waiting for the sentence to be filled out. Like it's been said, what do you do if you realize an executed man was innocent?

I don't think I'd want to spend years and years in a supermax prison though, perhaps execution might be more merciful in that case. I think people should be given a choice, though. It is our lives after all; and if the government can keep you from escaping there's no reason you shouldn't be allowed to live it there if you want to, right?

At 6/28/07 12:46 AM, SolInvictus wrote: Godwin's law should be editted to include the mentioning of Bush as well.

It's getting that way isn't it? Except George Bush is used less for discrediting people's views and more for jokes about mental retardation. :)

Congrats to SevenSeeeez.

At 6/28/07 09:25 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
If you hate conservatism, but you say you dont have conservatives, it's a bit of a paradox, if you really did hate conservatism, any sort of political discussion would likely result in your Flame blasting of a conservative speaker.

Assuming you meant "you don't hate conservatives" (hate instead of have), I don't think it's a paradox. You can hate a person's ideals without hating that person. A person is more than the ideology he or she follows.

At 6/28/07 08:51 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 10:21 AM, JoS wrote: The US is currently the most powerful economy in the world. However that could change in the next 10-20 years if they continue the slow rate of growth, the deficit continues to grow and China or India are able to maintain similar rates of growth to what they have right now.

The US should stop being a superpower.

Maybe it might get the enviornmentalist wack jobs to back off.

You know... I sure do wish China passes us.

After what their government did to the people who practiced Falun Gong and anyone who opposed them in any way that they deemed a threat? There's no debate on whether China's "interrogation" techniques are torture- they still have tons of forced labor camps scattered across the country. We can hope that there will be democratic reform but we should not regard them as being better than us human-rights wise at all.

At 6/28/07 06:54 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 05:59 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

However a lot of us Americans don't know some of the more shady things the CIA has done in our name, and that is probably one of the big reasons we are hated in some places. The CIA itself just released a report about that.

Gee, Who'd have thought that the CIA did anything like that at all.

As for Ron Paul being elected, I hear he's very opposed to the United Nations... and I really don't think that's what this country or the world needs right now. We've already damaged our relationship with our main allies enough, what we need right now is to strengthen those ties.

Strengthen them, how?

Abiding by their every will?

America sucks. It's just that every European nation sucks more.

Strengthen them by not pissing them off at every given opportunity, by showing them we're sick of Bush and his ilk, and generally not being a dick. Oh, and certainly by not claiming you want to abolish the U.N. It just seems to me that if Ron Paul is elected, although he won't be as interventionist as Bush has been, he'll be noninterventionist to the point where he won't want to cooperate with our allies (NATO and the like) when it's appropriate. Also, it's not just Europe, we've got Australia, Israel, South Korea, New Zealand and Canada as traditional allies, though (to a lesser extent with Israel, possibly) since Bush was elected him and his administration have managed to really screw that up. We need strong allies because of the way Russia is going; the country is centralizing power and becoming more and more like the former Soviet Union. And in the meantime China is just growing stronger and stronger in the background; India is getting bigger and bigger economically, but I don't think they're really as much of a threat, they're not virulently anti-capitalist like China. Either way, we have a good case for not pissing our international NATO (and the like) friends off. I'm not saying we should cowtow to whatever they want but I am saying that we shouldn't try to make what Bush has done to our international relations any worse.

At 6/28/07 07:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 07:20 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: After all Memorize, you've seen me argue against bcdemon's support of the insurgency. You know as well as I do that I do not support the terrorists, etc. fighting the U.S., the Iraqi army, and each other in Iraq.

Yes.

But it's the fact that you're weak enough to state that those who behead people and outright lie when they are captured in order to provoke outrage from the people of the US to hate the government (ex. flushing the koran down a toilet), is what amazes me.

Except that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we don't know that the people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay ARE those people yet. We don't know if they're the guy who cut off the head or some guy who was crossing the street 15 minutes before someone was kidnapped. This is a matter of making sure we have the right people in prison, not what we're doing with people we actually know are criminals.

And I don't regard it as a weakness. I regard it as being confident enough in our country that we can handle giving out the rights we promise while still defending against the people who try to take them away from us.

We never had this problem in wars or conflicts before on POWs. We didn't have it in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War. Not until now. Why? Because people's hatred towards President Bush is so huge that they will do anything that degresses this nation.

An example of that would be the ACLU fighting to give convicted felons the right to vote for the most powerful seat in the world.

I agree that the ACLU is a little extreme sometimes but it's getting pathetic what qualifies as a "felony" these days. (ex: drug related crimes)

I also agree that a lot of the controversy has to do with the public's very low opinion of President Bush but the main reason is because the advanced technology of today allows information to be circulated much faster and more efficiently than before we even had television. And there was PLENTY of POW controversy in Vietnam, and the reason we didn't see much in the Gulf War (though there was the Highway of Death controversy) is because Bush the First didn't decide to set up residence for so long.

At 6/28/07 07:17 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 6/28/07 07:01 PM, JoS wrote:

At 6/28/07 10:26 AM, Jackotrades wrote: (around 10 billion i think).

Try multiplying that by 100.

Then try multiplying THAT by 10. lol owned.

Now try finding the complete square root of 2. lol owned more.

The sad thing is is that we can actually play around with the number like that.

After all Memorize, you've seen me argue against bcdemon's support of the insurgency. You know as well as I do that I do not support the terrorists, etc. fighting the U.S., the Iraqi army, and each other in Iraq.

At 6/28/07 06:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 06:33 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

bunch of useless jibberish

And this children is how terrorists win. Because people like synthetictacos believes that those who hack people's heads off deserve good human treatment.

Your replacement of my thought-out argument with "bunch of useless jibberish" reminds me a lot of a mentally retarded person who's been given long division's response "now what's all this math stuff?", except the mentally retarded person isn't trying his best to piss off the guy with a basic knowledge of math.

If you had payed any fucking attention to what I said you would know I am not DEFENDING TERRORISTS. As I thought you would, you automatically assumed anybody that disagrees with you for some reason is DEFENDING TERRORISTS. (shock!) This reminds me a lot of the Chinese Revolution.

Mid-20th century Chinese SyntheticTacos: We have no proof that all of these people are Western conspirators; they should be tried for their crimes, not imprisoned indefinitely.
Mid-20th century Memorize: SO YOU SUPPORT THE CAPITALIST PIGS, EH!?

Modern day SyntheticTacos: We have no proof that all of these people are terrorists; they should be tried for their crimes, not imprisoned indefinitely.
Modern day Memorize: SO YOU SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS, EH!?

I am not defending terrorism if the people in question have not been proven to be terrorists. Useless hyperbole will get you nowhere.

Haha, it becomes rather pathetic when the government doesn't lie nearly as much as the people do.

Translation of above remark from Memorize-ese: Haha, since I have no real defense to your argument I'll just make a snide remark to the side and hope you don't notice I don't know what I'm talking bout.

At 6/28/07 06:09 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Note I said the word SUSPECTED.

Well... prove it.

It's highly ironic how you expect him to prove that war crimes have taken place to believe that they have while you don't need anybody to prove that people are terrorists for you to believe they are.

I was merely pointing out that you could also take into the fact that there are alledged human rights issues surrounding the place.

Weaklings.

Translation of above comment from Memorize-ese: I look down upon you because you're not just calling me a dumbass like I would to do you and you are instead coming up with a real argument.

Debate the issue, don't just dismiss my arguments with hyperbole.

At 6/28/07 05:36 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

At 6/28/07 05:07 PM, Grammer wrote: New Jersey has already banned fireworks, and the bear hunt. It totally sucks.

We still have them, but they cannot be sold in portable buildings anymore, like stands by the road. It was to be a permanent building. hmmm....

Well that's a weird law. I wonder how that came to be.

At 6/28/07 05:38 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 05:34 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

Name 5 proven accounts of due process.

That only applies to American Citizens under the Constitution.

Terrorist, extremists and insurgents of foreign nations during a time of war, does not apply.

Except that without due process, we cannot tell whether they are terrorists, extremists, and insurgents. You only lose these rights IF you've been proven that you've denied these rights to others (i.e. being a terrorist,extremist, or insurgent). In our Declaration of Independence it says:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

Our own declaration of independence says that liberty is granted to ALL men, not just Americans. It also says that governments are created to secure that liberty, which means that the Bill of Rights was created to enforce liberty. That means that the intention of the Bill of Rights was to help secure a right that all men have. If all men have the right of liberty, then there is no reason why something that was created to secure that right should not apply to all men. Since we believe that the Bill of Rights elaborates on this right that we all have, it means that its provisions further describe this right and therefore since we all have that right and since we believe in the Bill of Rights, we agree that our definition of liberty coincides with the rights the Bill of Rights grants us.

In short, our declaration says that all men have inalienable rights, including liberty. Our Bill of Rights defines certain things about this liberty. Therefore, all men deserve the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

If you have a problem with giving due process of law to detainees, then you have a problem with the Bill of Rights. These rights are taken away because people have been proven to have done these crimes. They can't be proven to have done these crimes without due process of law; our own Bill of Rights (which details freedoms that apply to all men) says so. After all, Iraq is in our own jurisdiction now. One of the reasons you give to go to war with Iraq is that they were being denied basic human rights. It pretty much makes us hypocrites if we deny human rights to them ourselves. It's illogical to call the detainees terrorists, etc. until they have undergone due process of law. Sure, a lot of them may be terrorists, etc., but we don't deny domestic suspects due process of law that we think MIGHT be criminals because a lot of them are. Then again, that's what some conservatives like yourself try to do in the name of being "tough on crime". You can't be "tough on crime" until you've proven through due process of law that there was actually a crime committed at all.

To sum it all up:

#1. Detainees deserve due process of law. Our declaration says that all men have inalienable rights, including liberty. Our Bill of Rights defines certain things about this liberty. Therefore, all men deserve the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

#2. You cannot say- well, you can, and given your previous pattern of attack have a fair chance of doing so, but it would be wrong for you to say: that I'm supporting terrorists, etc.. This is because I support giving detainees eventual due process of law. I recognize that some people who have not committed a crime will have to be detained to be safe, but we should not deny everyone due process of law because some of them HAVE committed a crime. I'm not supporting terrorists, etc. I just want to make sure that the people we ARE locking up are actually terrorists, etc. I'm not supporting rapists if I want criminal suspects to have a trial; and I'm not supporting terrorists etc.; if I want enemy combatant suspects to have a trial.

At 6/28/07 05:40 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 05:30 PM, Philly-Almighty wrote:

well, if we had better foreign policy, by setting a good example instead of being the bullies of the world, then maybe they would stay out of our business.

How the fuck is the US bullying anyone?

We forgive debts.
We give the most aid.
We make up most of the UN budget AND military force.

The UN is using American money to buy and ship anti-American propaganda to North Korea.

What the hell are we doing to anyone?

I agree that the U.S. does a lot more good things than many people give it credit for outside of our country, but I'd like to see some evidence on the U.N. shipping anti-American propaganda to North Korea thing.

However a lot of us Americans don't know some of the more shady things the CIA has done in our name, and that is probably one of the big reasons we are hated in some places. The CIA itself just released a report about that.

Still, all the people who try to pretend that the U.S. is the worst country in the world don't seem to be realizing how much good the U.S. does and how terrible the governments of many other countries are.

As for Ron Paul being elected, I hear he's very opposed to the United Nations... and I really don't think that's what this country or the world needs right now. We've already damaged our relationship with our main allies enough, what we need right now is to strengthen those ties.

Except the mafia doesn't provide you with an army to defend you from other nations, social welfare programs, regulations on medicine, or many other good things the government does, including.. having police to fight the mafia.

Your points are insightful though; but the government is more useful to us when it's set up properly than the mafia.

No, fireworks should not be banned. Anything that involves fire or even electricity (therefore including the possibility of electrical fire) is going to have its own set of accidents; responsible parenting is more important if you want to prevent those sort of accidents.

At 6/26/07 08:35 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 6/25/07 01:54 PM, Proteas wrote: Also; running up and down stairs as fast as you can is great excercise. Beats the crap out of any stair-stepper any day.

I used to do that more but now I've been too busy running up stores in

Well that's the stupidist mess-up of a post I've ever written. Pressed "Post it!" too early. Sorry. :(

Anyways, as I was saying.

I used to do that more but now I've bene to busy running up stairs in computer games from 1998.

At 6/25/07 01:54 PM, Proteas wrote: Also; running up and down stairs as fast as you can is great excercise. Beats the crap out of any stair-stepper any day.

I used to do that more but now I've been too busy running up stores in

At 6/23/07 01:27 PM, Proteas wrote: Fuck it, I won't take this lying down.

At 6/23/07 01:33 AM, TheSovereign wrote: - The only people who deserve proper health care are the ones who can afford it.

And why not? I'm amazed the healthcare industry is able to survive AT ALL in countries where socialized health care is the norm, seems like somebody is loosing money on that venture.

I'm not gonna make a big deal about this one but the reason places like Scandinavia can afford it is because they're tax rates are so high. This is balanced out by increased government aid, however. Not a case for either side but just a fact. You know what, though, I do believe one of a country's main responsibilities is to make sure its people aren't dying out from disease but we're certainly not a third world nation either and I don't think we should necessarily be paying for people's face lifts either.

- Text books should be replaced with bibles.

As opposed to... what? The typical democrat's view that any viewpoint that differs from their own should be squashed on sight for fear that it might warp their brain? A little bit of hypocracy, don't you think?

There are a lot of Christian democrats, mind you, some of them just have the sense not to try and indoctrinate the kids at schools who aren't Christian with Christian theology as well as the kids who are already being indoctrinated each Sunday as well. Public schools are a government-funded institution. We believe in the doctrine of separation of church and state. Therefore government-funded institutions cannot teach religious theories. At the very least we believe in freedom of (and FROM) religion, and trying to teach peoples' kids to believe in a different religion does seem a bit of a breach of that. We have theology courses in colleges in a reason; don't you think the teachers' own personal bias would get in the way during K-12? (U.S.A. pre-college education system, just FYI for you non-Americans out there)

- You can't trust a woman with a choice but you can trust her with a child.

I don't trust a woman with either of them, quiet frankly.

So is that chauvinism or just a joke? :)

- The war on terror is a holy war.

Uhm, let me see... "Kill the infidel" and by "infidel" they mean "Christians or anyone that disagrees with their secular viewpoint." Yep, sounds like a holy war to me.

I think the implication Sovereign is trying to make is that it's a sort of second Crusade, which i hope it never devolves into.

- You support the impediment of medical advances.

No we don't. Hell, we're throwing umbilical cords at you by the pound most of the time.

He's probably referring to stem-cell research, something that Republicans traditionally oppose more than democrats. He's pretty right on that one.

- Gays don't deserve human rights.

Human Rights =/= Marriage rights. There's a difference.

Ah, but if certain Republican congressmen had their way they'd be losing all their other civil rights too. Believe what you want of marriage but to me it's pretty wrong to discriminate there on base of gender.

- You admit Bush fails as a president, but you defend him at all costs.

Compared to the largely democrat controlled congress that has been HIGHLY INEFECTUAL since it took control 6 months ago? They have the power to kick Bush out of office and bring our troops home today if they wanted to, and what have they done so far?

Because merely having a majority of a few more people gives you complete and total control over the Congress. Sure they have the Speaker of the House, but when the Republicans had control they didn't manage to make gay marriage illegal or provide the death penalty for medical marijuana or whatever it is they want to do. ;) They still need to have enough people in support of conviction to make an impeachment worthwhile and I think less would be in support than you might think.

- All Muslims are evil doers hell bent on the destruction of America.

Well aren't we "The Great Satan" to them?

No, we are "The Great Satan" to the GOVERNMENTS of Saudi Arabia and Iran and the like, not all the people. The people of Iran specifically are usually a lot more forward thinking and now many see through the government rhetoric; Americans aren't all like Dick Cheney, so don't say all Iranians are like Ali Khomenei. After all, with all the trouble we have changing our government democratically you KNOW the people aren't the ones deciding the oppresssive policies put in place in the totalitarian governments in the Middle East.

- All the problems in America are the fault of leftists, especially the Democrats.

I don't see why not, all you do is sit around and bitch about the problems without ever offering up solutions. Case in point; this topic.

Yes, they never offer solutions, which must be why the Democrats offer stuff like time tables and new policies and are congressmen and stuff. :D I may not be a Democrat but I sure know that Republicans don't do much better, though I doubt they do better at all.

To be fair extremist leftists piss me off too, but we have more of a problem with the extreme right-wing in this country. The rest of the world is where we see more of the nutty leftists, but here it's more often guys like Rush Limbaugh than Vladimir Lenin.

At 6/25/07 07:03 PM, Altarus wrote: LOL, atheists receive such poor representation on the Internet. Yes, there are a LOT of whiney, immature atheists on the Internet, but not all atheists are intolerant assholes. You just hear mostly from the ones that are.

Altarus, thanks. :o It goes the same way for religious people in this day and age.

I don't know what kind of representation agnostics like me are getting though. Is that ironic?

I'd like to see some proof that there are no atheists that give to charities.

I can already think of Tycho Brahe from Penny-Arcade off the top of my head, but there's probably plenty more I'm missing. Remember Penny-Arcade created Child's Play, and that's a pretty big charity.

Not all charities have to be religious; I'm pretty sure I've seen some atheists who are nicer than some religious people I've met.

Douglas Adams sure was a bit less virulent than say, Pat Robertson

At 6/25/07 12:02 AM, HomicideJack wrote

right........that was slightly less pointless than what skunkyfluffy wrote.....or about the same

Aw, I'll try harder next time, maybe then i will be able to surpass the pointlessness.

At 6/24/07 05:22 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

I don't know what can I do. What else can I say? It's up to you.

What is love? *cue synth pad*

At 6/24/07 01:46 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/24/07 01:44 PM, TOEZ wrote:

At 6/24/07 01:43 PM, XY-XX wrote: Wow, I love all you guys.

Who are you?

Who the hell are you, for that matter?

More importantly, what is love?

I'd like to let you all know that i'm from the south and i don't find it necessary to wave the Confederate flag.

Yes, we know there was a civil war, we're not going to forget it; you have every right to wave that flag and I will fight for your right to do it because it's an expression of free speech, but I'd much rather you didn't. You know that it reminds our African-American friends of slavery and YES we know the civil war wasn't just about slavery but it WAS a big part of it and when many African-Americans look at the flag that's what you see. So if you want to be an asshole you can go ahead and wave it, it's within your rights but keep in mind it's not going to make you many friends in the African-American community.

At 6/12/07 12:41 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: The term 'agnostic' wasn't created any later than 'athiest'.

I think it was, actually. I did some quick wikipedia research and on the Atheism page it says:

"In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587."

And on the Agnosticism page it says:

""Agnostic" was introduced by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 to describe his philosophy which rejects Gnosticism, by which he meant not simply the early 1st millennium religious group, but all claims to occult or mystical knowledge"

I know we have to be wary when it comes to wikpedia research but I believe these have been properly sourced on their respective pages.

So it sounds like we did get the term "atheism" before the term "agnosticism". Correct me if I'm wrong though.